[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F45F1F0.2010102@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:59:44 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
> Trying to make all the controllers uniform in terms of their treatment
> of cgroup hiearchy sounds like a good thing to do.
Agreed.
Apart from nesting cgroups, there're other inconsistencies.
- Some controllers disallow more than one cgroup layer. That's the new
net_prio controller, and I don't know why it's made so, but I guess
it's fine to eliminate this restriction.
- Some controllers move resource charges when a task is moved to
a different cgroup, but some don't?
- Some controllers disallow task attaching under some circumstances.
So if we have a single hierarchy with all subsystems, the chance
that attaching a task to a cgroup fails may be bigger.
> Once that is done,
> one can probably see if it is worth to put all the controllers in a
> single hierarchy.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists